עירובין 80 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and of which they do not taste the fruit; and Samuel said: One, for instance, concerning which the priests say: "These dates are for the beer of the temple of Nizrefe" since they drink it on their festival day; and the elders of Pumbeditha told me: The law is in agreement with Samuel’. An objection was raised: How is shittuf in an alley effected? A jar of wine, oil, dates, dried figs or any other kind of fruit is brought there. If it is his own he must transfer possession to all the residents; and if it is theirs he must uniform them, and then one raises it slightly from the ground! — By the expression ‘slightly’ also a handbreadth was meant. It was stated: The food for the shittuf of alleys, Rab ruled, requires no transfer of possession, and Samuel ruled: It does require transfer of possession. As regards the food for an ‘erub of Sabbath limits, Rab ruled: Transfer of possession is required and Samuel ruled: Transfer of possession is not required. Samuel's view can well be justified, since we have learnt the one and have not learnt the other. What, however, Is the justification for Rab's view? — The question of transfer is a point at issue between Tannas. For Rab Judah related in the name of Rab: The daughter-in-law of R. Oshaia was once overtaken by dusk when she went to a bath house and her mother-in-law prepared for her an ‘erub. R. Hiyya to whom the incident was reported forbade her return. Babylonian’, said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose to him, ‘are you so strict about the laws of ‘erub. Thus said my father: Wherever you see an opportunity of relaxing the laws of ‘erub seize it’. And when the question was raised: ‘Was the ‘erub prepared out of her mother-in-law's food and the reason [for the prohibition] was that she did not transfer possession to her or was it rather that it was prepared out of her own food and the reason for the prohibition was that it was done without her knowledge?’ One of the Rabbis, whose name was R. Jacob, told them: ‘It was explained to me by R. Johanan that the ‘erub was prepared out of her mother-in-law's food and that the reason for the prohibition was that she did not transfer possession to her’. R. Zera requested R. Jacob son of Jacob's daughter: When you arrive in Palestine make a detour to visit the Ladder of Tyre and ask R. Jacob b. Idi [his version of the incident]. ‘Was the ‘erub’, he asked him [in due course], ‘prepared out of her mother-in-law's food and the reason for the prohibition was that she did not transfer possession to her or was it rather that it was prepared out of her own food and the reason for the prohibition was that it was done without her knowledge?’ ‘The ‘erub’, the other replied: ‘was prepared out of her mother-in-law's food and the reason for the prohibition was that she did not transfer possession to her’. R. Nahman stated: We have a tradition that both in the case of ‘erubs of Sabbath limits and in that of shittuf of alleys possession must be transferred. R. Nahman, however, enquired: Is it necessary or not to confer possession in the case of an ‘erub of dishes? — ‘Why’, remarked R. Joseph, ‘did he ask this question? Did he not hear the ruling laid down by R. Nahman b. K. Adda in the name of Samuel that an ‘erub of dishes must be conferred [upon those who are to benefit from it]?’ — ‘It is obvious’, Abaye retorted: ‘that he did not hear it; for had he heard it what was the point of his asking?’ — ‘Did not Samuel rule’, the first replied: ‘that in the case of ‘erubs of Sabbath limits possession need not be conferred and he nevertheless ruled that possession must be conferred?’ — ‘What a comparison! His ruling may well be justified there, since Rab and Samuel are at variance on the point and he desired to inform us that we must adopt the restrictions of the one Master as well as those of the other Master, but in this case, seeing that no one disputes Samuel's ruling would he, if he had heard it, have asked his question?’ A certain superintendent of the town armory lived in the neighbourhood of R. Zera, and when [the Israelite residents] asked him to let his share to them he refused. They, thereupon, came to R. Zera and asked him whether it would be permissible to rent it from his wife. ‘Thus’, he replied: ‘said Resh Lakish In the name of a great man (and who is it? — R. Hanina): A wife may prepare all ‘erub without her husband's knowledge’. A certain superintendent of the town armory lived in the neighbourhood of R. Judah b. Oshaia. ‘Will you’, the Israelite residents asked him, ‘let your share to us?’ He refused. They proceeded to R. Judah b. Oshaia and asked him whether it was permissible to rent it from his wife, but he was unable to supply the information. They then proceeded to R. Mattena who also was unable to supply it. When they finally came to Rab Judah he told then), ‘Thus said Samuel: A wife may prepare an ‘erub without her husband's knowledge’. An objection was raised: If women prepared an ‘erub or arranged shittuf without their husbands’ knowledge there is no validity either in their ‘erub or in their shittuf? — This is no difficulty, since one deals with a person who imposes restrictions, while the other deals with one who does not impose restrictions. This explanation may also be supported by a process of reasoning, since a contradiction would otherwise arise between two rulings of Samuel. For Samuel ruled: ‘If one of the residents of an alley, who usually joins the other residents in shittuf refused to join then, the residents may enter his house and collect his contribution to the shittuf by force’, [from which it follows that this applies only to] one who usually [joins his neighbours in the shittuf] but not to one who did not. This is conclusive. May it be suggested that the following provides support to his view: A resident may be compelled to provide a side-post and a cross-beam for an alley?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ

^ᵃnote:If they had not worshipped the tree as an Asherah they would not have abstained from eating of its fruit.
^ᵇnote:Though they eat its fruit.
^ᶜnote:A Persian house of worship, cf. A.Z., Sonc. ed., p. 239, n. 8.
^ᵈnote:Though the tree itself is not worshipped it is regarded as all Asherah by implication since its produce is devoted to idolatry.
^ᵉnote:Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis ‘Amemar said’.
^ᶠnote:Against Rab Judah who laid down supra that the jar must be raised a handbreadth from the ground.
^ᵍnote:That of the man who prepares the Shittuf.
^ʰnote:In the manner prescribed supra (v. our Mishnah and notes).
^ⁱnote:So that they may all have a share in it.
^ʲnote:That their joint stock is to be used for shittuf. Since the ‘erub of a man who ‘is particular about his share in a joint ‘erub’ is invalid (supra 49a), all the residents must have an opportunity of expressing consent or disapproval. Unless they had such all opportunity the shittuf is invalid since it is possible that they would object to allow each other the full benefit of their respective shares.
^ᵏnote:A qualified person (cf. our Mishnah).
^ˡnote:Emphasis on this word.
^ᵐnote:Cf. supra p. 555, n. 6 mut. mut. How then is this to be reconciled with Rab Judah's ruling that the jar must be raised a full handbreadth from the ground?
^ⁿnote:That transfer of possession is required in shittuf but not in all ‘erub of Sabbath limits.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘here’, in our Mishnah where it is laid down that in the case of shittuf HE MUST CONFER POSSESSION.
^ᵖnote:Where the law of ‘erub of Sabbath limits is enunciated (cf. infra 82a) no mention is made of transfer of possession.
^ᵠnote:Which appears to be contrary to the rulings in the Mishnah.
^ʳnote:One of whom differs from the view in the Mishnah, and Rab follows his view.
^ˢnote:On the Sabbath eve.
^ᵗnote:That was without the Sabbath limit of the town.
^ᵘnote:Of Sabbath limits to enable her to return to town. (So Rashi. For a different interpretation v. Tosaf. a.l.)
^ᵛnote:Cf. prev. n.
^ʷnote:R. Hiyya hailed from Babylon (cf. Suk. 20a).
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘make easy’.
^ʸnote:By R. Hiyya.
^ᶻnote:The mother-in-law.
^ᵃᵃnote:Her daughter-in-law.
^ᵃᵇnote:Thus it has been shown that the question of the necessity for the transfer of possession in the case of an ‘erub of Sabbath limits is one in dispute between the Tannas R. Hiyya and R. Ishmael. Rab, by adopting the view of the former, may, therefore, maintain it though it is contrary to a Mishnah. As to his view on shittuf which is contrary to our Mishnah the explanation might be that Rab is regarded as a Tanna who may well differ from a Mishnah. V. Tosaf. a.l. for another interpretation.
^ᵃᶜnote:His father was unworthy to be named (Rashi).
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘there’. The request was made in Babylon.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘make a circuit and go’.
^ᵃᶠnote:About the ‘erub for R. Oshaia's daughter-in-law.
^ᵃᵍnote:In agreement with Rab's view.
^ᵃʰnote:Cur. edd. insert erubs of courtyards’. The phrase is omitted with MS.M. and Bah.
^ᵃⁱnote:To those who are to benefit from it.
^ᵃʲnote:Tabshilin, lit., ‘cooked foodstuffs’. Such an ‘erub is prepared when a festival occurs on a Friday to enable those in whose favour it is prepared to cook, light candles and perform all other necessary services for the Sabbath on the festival day. In the absence of such an ‘erub no kind of preparatory work for the Sabbath is allowed on a festival day.
^ᵃᵏnote:Which shows that in the case of ‘erubs of Sabbath limits he heard of Samuel's view but disregarded it. Is it not then possible that he did hear his view on that of ‘erubs of dishes also but did not accept it?
^ᵃˡnote:Lit., ‘thus, now’.
^ᵃᵐnote:‘Erubs of Sabbath limits.
^ᵃⁿnote:That of ‘erubs of dishes.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘is there one who differs?’
^ᵃᵖnote:Obviously not. Hence Abaye's conviction that he could not have heard it.
^ᵃᵠnote:Who was a heathen.
^ᵃʳnote:To enable them to arrange Shittuf for their alley.
^ᵃˢnote:Lit., ‘they said to him: Let your domain to us. He did not let to them’.
^ᵃᵗnote:The heathen's.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., ‘it was not in his hand’.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit., ‘their ‘erub is no ‘erub’ etc.
^ᵃʷnote:A contradiction to the ruling just cited by Rab Judah.
^ᵃˣnote:The ruling that ‘a wife may prepare an ‘erub without her husband's knowledge’.
^ᵃʸnote:That in the Baraitha.
^ᵃᶻnote:One, for instance, whose courtyard was situated between the alley under discussion and another alley and who was in the habit of using the latter and not the former. In such circumstances no restrictions are imposed on the alley in question.
^ᵇᵃnote:That Samuel agrees that a wife may not prepare an ‘erub where her husband imposes no restrictions.
^ᵇᵇnote:Lit., ‘for if so, a difficulty of Samuel (arises) on that of Samuel’.
^ᵇᶜnote:enable them to arrange a shittuf for their alley.
^ᵇᵈnote:Since the qualification ‘who usually joins’ was added.
^ᵇᵉnote:That shittuf may be arranged without a resident's knowledge or consent.
^ᵇᶠnote:Sc. one who imposed restrictions upon them.
^ᵇᵍnote:If, therefore, a distinction is drawn between a resident who imposes restrictions and one who does not, this ruling of Samuel may well be reconciled with the one cited in his name by Rab Judah. If, however, no such distinction is drawn and no emphasis is laid on ‘usually joins’, a contradiction would arise between the two rulings of Samuel himself.
^ᵇʰnote:That coercion may be used in the matter of shittuf.

²— The case may be different there where no partitions are in existence. Another reading: From the side is different. It was stated: R. Hiyya b. Ashi ruled: A side-post may be made from an Asherah, but R. Simeon b. Lakish ruled: A crossbeam may be made from an Asherah. He who permitted a crossbeam would, with much more reason, permit a side-post; but he who permitted a side-post would not permit a cross-beam, since its prescribed size is virtually crushed to dust. MISHNAH. IF THE FOOD WAS REDUCED [ONE OF THE RESIDENTS] MUST ADD TO IT AND AGAIN CONFER POSSESSION [UPON THE OTHERS] BUT THERE IS NO NEED TO INFORM THEM. IF THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS HAS IN CREASED, HE MUST ADD FOOD AND CONFER POSSESSION [UPON THEM], AND THEY MUST BE INFORMED OF THE FACTS. WHAT IS THE QUANTITY REQUIRED? WHEN THE RESIDENTS ARE MANY THERE SHOULD BE FOOD SUFFICIENT FOR TWO MEALS FOR ALL OF THEM AND WHEN THEY ARE FEW THERE SHOULD BE FOOD OF THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG FOR EACH ONE. R. JOSE RULED: THIS APPLIES ONLY TO THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ‘ERUB BUT IN THE CASE OF THE REMNANTS OF ONE EVEN THE SMALLEST QUANTITY OF FOOD IS SUFFICIENT, THE SOLE REASON FOR THE INJUNCTION TO PROVIDE ‘ERUBS FOR COURTYARDS BEING THAT [THE LAW OF ‘ERUB] SHALL NOT BE FORGOTTEN BY THE CHILDREN. GEMARA. What are we dealing with? If it be suggested: With the same kind, what point was there in speaking of an ‘erub that WAS REDUCED seeing that the same law applies even if nothing of it remained? If the reference, however, is to two kinds, the same law should apply, should it not, even if the food had only been reduced, since it was taught: If nothing of the food remained there is no need to inform, the residents if the new ‘erub is prepared of the same kind, but if it is of a different kind it is necessary to inform them? If you prefer I might reply: The reference is to an addition of the same kind, and if you prefer I might reply: Of a different kind. ‘If you prefer I might reply: The reference is to an addition of the same kind’, and as to WAS REDUCED it means it was reduced to atoms. ‘And if you prefer I might reply: Of a different kind’ since the case where ‘nothing of the food remained’ is different [from that where the food was only reduced]. IF THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS HAS INCREASED, HE MUST ADD FOOD AND CONFER POSSESSION [UPON THEM] etc. Said R. Shezbi in the name of R. Hisda: This implies that R. Judah's colleagues differ from him, for we learned: R. Judah ruled: This applies only to ‘erubs of Sabbath limits but in the case of ‘erubs of courtyards one may be prepared for a person whether he is aware of it or not. Is it not quite obvious that they differ? — It might have been presumed that [our Mishnah] refers to the case of a courtyard between two alleys but not to that of a courtyard in one alley; hence we were informed [that it refers to the latter case also]. WHAT IS THE QUANTITY REQUIRED? etc. What number of residents is regarded as MANY? — Rab Judah citing Samuel replied: Eighteen men. Only ‘eighteen’ and no more? — Say: From eighteen and upwards. But why was just the number eighteen selected? R. Isaac son of Rab Judah replied: It was explained to me by my father that wherever the food for two meals, if divided between them, would not suffice to provide for each as much as the size of a dried fig, the residents are regarded as MANY and a quantity of food [for two meals only suffices, otherwise they are regarded as FEW; and that we were indirectly informed that food for two meals consists of a quantity that is equal to the size of eighteen dried figs. MISHNAH. WITH ALL KINDS [OF FOOD] MAY ‘ERUB OR SHITTUF BE EFFECTED EXCEPT WITH WATER OR SALT; SO R. ELIEZER. R. JOSHUA RULED: A WHOLE LOAF OF BREAD IS A VALID ‘ERUB. EVEN A BAKING OF ONE SE'AH, IF IT IS A BROKEN LOAF, MAY NOT BE USED FOR ‘ERUB WHILE A LOAF OF THE SIZE OF AN ISSAR, PROVIDED IT IS WHOLE, MAY BE USED FOR ‘ERUB.^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ^ᵈᵃ^ᵈᵇ^ᵈᶜ^ᵈᵈ^ᵈᵉ^ᵈᶠ^ᵈᵍ^ᵈʰ^ᵈⁱ^ᵈʲ^ᵈᵏ^ᵈˡ^ᵈᵐ^ᵈⁿ^ᵈᵒ^ᵈᵖ^ᵈᵠ^ᵈʳ^ᵈˢ

^ᵇⁱnote:In the absence of side-post or cross-beam the alley remains exposed to the public domain and all movement of objects within it is strictly forbidden. In order to liberate the residents from such serious inconvenience it may well have been ordered that they may coerce any recalcitrant neighbour. In the case of shittuf, however, the purpose of which is merely to provide the residents with the added convenience of carrying objects into the alley from their houses and courtyards, it may well be maintained that no one may be coerced to join if he refuses to do so. MS.M. and R. Tam. read: ‘where there are partitions’. For the interpretation v. Tosaf. a.l.
^ᵇʲnote:This is meaningless and is deleted by Bah. It is also wanting in MS.M. and several of the old ed. Some emendations have been suggested. Cf. Elijah Wilna glosses and Golds.
^ᵇᵏnote:Though its size must conform to a prescribed minimum.
^ᵇˡnote:The size of whose width and thickness has not been prescribed.
^ᵇᵐnote:It must be a handbreadth wide and strong enough to carry the weight of an ariah or half a brick.
^ᵇⁿnote:As all object of idolatry that must be buried (cf. Deut. XII, 3).
^ᵇᵒnote:Being legally non-existent it cannot be used as a cross-beam.
^ᵇᵖnote:To less than the minimum prescribed infra.
^ᵇᵠnote:To bring it up to the required quantity.
^ᵇʳnote:Since they once expressed their consent when they first joined in the ‘erub.
^ᵇˢnote:Lit., ‘they were added to them’.
^ᵇᵗnote:If all the food was his.
^ᵇᵘnote:If the food belonged to all the residents where, for instance, they had a joint stock.
^ᵇᵛnote:So that they may have an opportunity of expressing approval or dissent.
^ᵇʷnote:Of food.
^ᵇˣnote:For the ‘erub. Cur. edd. read ‘their quantity’; MS.M. ‘its quantity’.
^ᵇʸnote:This is defined in the Gemara infra.
^ᵇᶻnote:It is not necessary for each one to have more than a fraction of the food.
^ᶜᵃnote:The prescribed minima.
^ᶜᵇnote:I.e., when it is first prepared.
^ᶜᶜnote:Sc. if the ‘erub consisted originally of the prescribed quantity but was subsequently reduced.
^ᶜᵈnote:Contrary to the opinion of the first Tanna, R. Jose holds that the main institution of ‘erub is that of Sabbath limits.
^ᶜᵉnote:After Shittuf had been arranged.
^ᶜᶠnote:The rising generation. As this is the sole reason of its institution its regulations are in every way to be relaxed.
^ᶜᵍnote:In the ruling that IF THE FOOD . . . WAS REDUCED . . . THERE IS NO NEED TO INFORM THEM, from which it follows that if nothing of the food remained the residents must be informed if a new ‘erub is prepared on their behalf.
^ᶜʰnote:Sc. that the addition to the ‘erub is made from the same kind of food as that of the original.
^ᶜⁱnote:THERE IS NO NEED TO INFORM THEM.
^ᶜʲnote:Sc. that the addition is made from a food that is different from the original.
^ᶜᵏnote:The implication (cf. supra p. 561, n. 18) that ‘the residents must be informed’.
^ᶜˡnote:Cur. edd., ‘not’ is wanting from MS.M.
^ᶜᵐnote:Of: an ‘erub.
^ᶜⁿnote:And the same, it is now presumed, applies also where the food had only been reduced.
^ᶜᵒnote:As the original.
^ᶜᵖnote:Lit., ‘from two kinds’.
^ᶜᵠnote:That the addition is made from a food that is different from the original.
^ᶜʳnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᶜˢnote:Lit., ‘what’.
^ᶜᵗnote:ygn,b is understood as ynyn,b
^ᶜᵘnote:Hence the ruling in our Mishnah and its implication (cf. supra p. 561, n. 18).
^ᶜᵛnote:Dealt with in the Baraitha from which the objection was raised.
^ᶜʷnote:Contrary to what had previously been assumed (cf. supra n. 7).
^ᶜˣnote:While in the former case, if two kinds of food are involved, the residents, as laid down in the Baraitha, must be informed, in the latter case they, as stated in our Mishnah, need not be informed.
^ᶜʸnote:The ruling, AND THEY MUST BE INFORMED.
^ᶜᶻnote:The authors of our Mishnah.
^ᵈᵃnote:R. Judah who holds that there is no need to inform the residents.
^ᵈᵇnote:That no ‘erub may be prepared for a person except with his consent.
^ᵈᶜnote:Since the ‘erub might be deposited in a direction away from that towards which the man for whom it is prepared desired to go, it is quite proper that his desire be ascertained before a step is taken that might be disadvantageous to him.
^ᵈᵈnote:I.e., even without his consent. This it has been shown that R. Judah ad the authors of our Mishnah differ.
^ᵈᵉnote:What need then was there for R. Shezbi to point it out?
^ᵈᶠnote:In ruling, AND THEY MUST BE INFORMED.
^ᵈᵍnote:Unless the person is informed with which alley the ‘erub is being prepared for him it cannot be known whether he prefers to join with that alley or with the other. Hence the justification of the ruling.
^ᵈʰnote:In which case, since the person has no alternative, it might have been presumed that the Rabbis of our Mishnah agree with R. Judah that the person need not be informed.
^ᵈⁱnote:By R. Shezbi's statement.
^ᵈʲnote:But if the eighteen are ‘many’ should not a number greater than eighteen be so described?
^ᵈᵏnote:The residents.
^ᵈˡnote:Lit., ‘reach’.
^ᵈᵐnote:Sc. if the number of the residents is eighteen or more. The food for two meals is equal in size to that of eighteen dried figs and when it is actually broken up into eighteen portions each is naturally slightly less than the size of a fig.
^ᵈⁿnote:Lit., ‘they, (even) they’.
^ᵈᵒnote:For all of them, however great’ their number might be.
^ᵈᵖnote:Lit., ‘and if not’, sc. if the number of the residents was not as much as eighteen.
^ᵈᵠnote:And it is sufficient if each one contributes food of a size of a dried fig, though the total of the contributions this amounts to less than two meals.
^ᵈʳnote:By Rab Judah who gave the number eighteen instead of the fuller explanation.
^ᵈˢnote:And there are as many loaves of this size as would suffice to supply bread of the size of a dried fig for each of the residents.